DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 6/05/2026 cancelled claims 7 and 9, amended claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 are pending herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/15/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A (Fig.1-3) in the reply filed on 6/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/05/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “integrated into or fixed” (Claim 1 – both options must be shown and labeled), must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “transversally” is unclear and should most likely be rewritten as “transversely”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “has concavity” is unclear and should most likely be rewritten as “has a concavity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “in use, rest” is unclear and should most likely be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation: “along a second direction, vertical in use, on the side” is unclear and should most likely be rewritten. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, and 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1/10, the claim recites the limitation: “integrated into or fixed” which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5, 8, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. (DE 2019128941 A1 - Applicant provided art) in view of Lanard et al. (US 7,011,360 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Klein teaches: A front frame assembly for a motor vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-7) said motor vehicle defining a longitudinal extension direction and comprising a frame (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 201+101) and a plurality of wheels (See, e.g. Fig.1-7) rotatable about respective rotational axes for moving said frame relative to the ground (See, e.g. Fig.1-7), said front frame assembly comprising:
a transversal element (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 101) extending transversally to said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-7); and
a heat exchange device (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 110+111) integrated into or fixed to said transversal element (See, e.g. Fig.1-7),
wherein said heat exchange device has concavity facing towards the ground on which said wheels, in use, rest (See, e.g. Fig.1-7).
Klein fails to explicitly teach: wherein said heat exchange device has a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction.
However, Lanard teaches a similar vehicle front frame assembly (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4) wherein a heat exchange device (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4, 5) has a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4).
Lanard teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle heat exchanger design to provide the heat exchange device with a curved profile in a plane passing through a longitudinal extension direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Klein modified to provide the heat exchange device with a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction such as taught by Lanard, for the purpose of conveniently allowing for increased cooling efficiency and reduced footprint within the crowded engine compartment due to vehicle mounting configuration given the curved profile. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: wherein said heat exchange device is a radiator comprising a plurality of ducts (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, 112); said ducts being adapted to be crossed, in use, on their inside by a first fluid and to be impinged on their outside by a second fluid (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, 110+111+112).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: wherein said heat exchange device comprises a lattice structure comprising said ducts (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, 110+111+112) and defining a plurality of interstices between said ducts adapted to be crossed, in use, by a flow of said second fluid (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, 110+11+112).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: Lanard discloses: wherein said heat exchange device is manufactured by additive manufacturing or said lattice structure is manufactured by additive manufacturing (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7; “additive manufacturing, for example 3D printing”).
[Claim 5] Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: wherein said ducts comprise a thermal exchange surface between said first fluid and said second fluid; said thermal exchange surface being flat (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, 110+111+112).
[Claim 8] Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: wherein said heat exchange device extends from said transversal element towards said rear portion along said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Klein teaches: A motor vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-7), comprising:
a frame (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 201+101);
a plurality of wheels (See, e.g. Fig.1-7) rotatable about respective rotational axes for moving said frame relative to the ground (See, e.g. Fig.1-7);
a front portion and a rear portion relative to a longitudinal extension direction of said motor vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-7);
said frame comprising a front frame assembly (See, e.g. Fig.1-7) arranged at said front portion said front frame (See, e.g. Fig.1-7) comprising: a transversal element (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 101) extending transversally to said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-7); and
a heat exchange device (See, e.g. Fig.1-7, 110+111) integrated into or fixed to said transversal element (See, e.g. Fig.1-7),
wherein said heat exchange device has concavity facing towards the ground on which said wheels, in use, rest (See, e.g. Fig.1-7).
Klein fails to explicitly teach: wherein said heat exchange device has a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction.
However, Lanard teaches a similar vehicle front frame assembly (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4) wherein a heat exchange device (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4, 5) has a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g., Lanard: Fig.1-4).
Lanard teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle heat exchanger design to provide the heat exchange device with a curved profile in a plane passing through a longitudinal extension direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Klein modified to provide the heat exchange device with a curved profile in a plane passing through said longitudinal extension direction such as taught by Lanard, for the purpose of conveniently allowing for increased cooling efficiency and reduced footprint within the crowded engine compartment due to vehicle mounting configuration given the curved profile. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007))
[Claim 11] Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Klein in view of Lanard teaches: wherein said heat exchange device protrudes beyond said transversal element along a second direction, vertical in use, on the side of said transversal element facing towards ground on which said wheels, in use, rest; said second direction being orthogonal to said longitudinal extension direction (See, e.g. Klein: Fig.1-7, in view of Lanard: Fig.1-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights